If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It is the truth. Weidman dominated Anderson in both fights. We can argue about how the fights ended (specially the second one), but we can not argue that Weidman was anyway beating the hell out of Silva, specially in the second fight.

As for Jones and his comments, lol, it is not his business

When i think of a person dominating another fighter, the result of the fight shouldnt have a * next to it - weather it belongs there or not. fight one - Anderon gets TKO'd ***** clowning. Yes he does it all the time we get it, but the * is still there. The second fight DEFINITELY has an * next to based solely on the leg break. A W is a W and im not trying to say weidman didnt win, but when a fight ends like that im sorry theres no real 'winner' in that fight. It was a fluke. Insert * #2.

As for the Jones commenting part, you do know he was asked this question by someone. Its not like Jones popped on twitter one day and just decided to give his point of view on the subject. He simply answered the question with how he honestly felt on the subject. Cut the guy some slack.

No he didn't. The first fight Chris capitalized on a moment where Anderson was being overly confident. Up until that point I fully expected Anderson to win the fight. I do agree that Chris was clearly winning the second fight.

Took him down, gnp, almost submitted gim and out struck him then KTfO in the first fight.
Second knocked him down from the clinch, more gnp outstruck him AGAIn and broke his leg exposing his poor technique on leg kicks.

Took him down, gnp, almost submitted gim and out struck him then KTfO in the first fight.
Second knocked him down from the clinch, more gnp outstruck him AGAIn and broke his leg exposing his poor technique on leg kicks.

DOMINATION.

I agree he dominated in the second so there's no need for a recap of that fight.

Are you forgetting how Anderson popped up from Chris's submission attempt? He certainly didn't keep him down like he did in the second fight. I wouldn't say he outstruck Anderson. Anderson at that point was playing with him and Chris took advantage. It's that cut and dry for the first fight.

When i think of a person dominating another fighter, the result of the fight shouldnt have a * next to it - weather it belongs there or not. fight one - Anderon gets TKO'd ***** clowning. Yes he does it all the time we get it, but the * is still there. The second fight DEFINITELY has an * next to based solely on the leg break. A W is a W and im not trying to say weidman didnt win, but when a fight ends like that im sorry theres no real 'winner' in that fight. It was a fluke. Insert * #2.

If you got KTFO, you got KTFO... clowning or not, Anderson got his ass beat by Weidman. No astrix, no explaination needed. Anderson attempted to utilize a game plan which included him 'clowning' Weidman as he did to most other fighters in the past. Anderson himself said this was a strategic part of his game plans, not only does it frusterate his opponents but it also allows him to hold his hands down low to defend a possible take down attempt. Anderson chose the wrong game plan for Weidman and got his ass beat, no fluke, no astrix. With your logic, any fight Anderson loses would be a fluke or need to have an astrix beside it as that is his style (to 'clown').

I agree he dominated in the second so there's no need for a recap of that fight.

Are you forgetting how Anderson popped up from Chris's submission attempt? He certainly didn't keep him down like he did in the second fight. I wouldn't say he outstruck Anderson. Anderson at that point was playing with him and Chris took advantage. It's that cut and dry for the first fight.

I see it as Silva used his clowning/dancing to take his opponetts out of there game. Chris game planned for it had the reach to capitalize and did so in 1st fight. 2nd fight game planed the kicks and got more than he expected in return, largely do to Silvas poor techinic he used.

I don't think Weidman dominated either fight. When I think of domination, I think of Georges vs. Fitch, or something where absolutely nothing works for one fighter. But hyperbole is so common in MMA, I can understand how the term is being thrown around, even if I don't agree with it.

But anyone who calls either fight a fluke or "flukeish" or whatever is either:
a) an unreasonably biased Anderson fan who can't deal with reality
b) an unreasonably biased hater of Weidman who can't deal with reality
c) a fucking idiot who would be prevented from procreating in the best of all possible worlds

rh

All manner of men came to work for the News: everything from wild young Turks who wanted to rip the world in half and start all over again -- to tired, beer-bellied old hacks who wanted nothing more than to live out their days in peace before a bunch of lunatics ripped the world in half.

I agree he dominated in the second so there's no need for a recap of that fight.

Are you forgetting how Anderson popped up from Chris's submission attempt? He certainly didn't keep him down like he did in the second fight. I wouldn't say he outstruck Anderson. Anderson at that point was playing with him and Chris took advantage. It's that cut and dry for the first fight.

It was good defense but it was also a good attempt. If the highlight of the fight is escaping one submission attempt in which he wasn't even able to do anything from the feet besides get knocked out that's pretty indicitive how how badly he was getting beat.

Originally Posted by rivethead

I don't think Weidman dominated either fight. When I think of domination, I think of Georges vs. Fitch, or something where absolutely nothing works for one fighter. But hyperbole is so common in MMA, I can understand how the term is being thrown around, even if I don't agree with it.

But anyone who calls either fight a fluke or "flukeish" or whatever is either:
a) an unreasonably biased Anderson fan who can't deal with reality
b) an unreasonably biased hater of Weidman who can't deal with reality
c) a fucking idiot who would be prevented from procreating in the best of all possible worlds

rh

yes I was kind of exaggerating just because of the fact that the disrespect pisses me off but I do think Anderson Silva proved to be the inferior fighter in every element of MMA in their two fights. he was clearly losing both fights .

Originally Posted by BonesKnows

When i think of a person dominating another fighter, the result of the fight shouldnt have a * next to it - weather it belongs there or not. fight one - Anderon gets TKO'd ***** clowning. Yes he does it all the time we get it, but the * is still there. The second fight DEFINITELY has an * next to based solely on the leg break. A W is a W and im not trying to say weidman didnt win, but when a fight ends like that im sorry theres no real 'winner' in that fight. It was a fluke. Insert * #2.

As for the Jones commenting part, you do know he was asked this question by someone. Its not like Jones popped on twitter one day and just decided to give his point of view on the subject. He simply answered the question with how he honestly felt on the subject. Cut the guy some slack.

Funny how you leave out that Silva broke his leg because Weidman exposed his poor striking technique and that he was getting beat the entire fight and then got knocked out clowning. Silva himself said the knockout was due to poor technique and not clowning. Weidman essentially proved that Silva is not a good technical striker at all just very powerful and fast with great reflexes.

It was good defense but it was also a good attempt. If the highlight of the fight is escaping one submission attempt in which he wasn't even able to do anything from the feet besides get knocked out that's pretty indicitive how how badly he was getting beat.

yes I was kind of exaggerating just because of the fact that the disrespect pisses me off but I do think Anderson Silva proved to be the inferior fighter in every element of MMA in their two fights. he was clearly losing both fights .

Funny how you leave out that Silva broke his leg because Weidman exposed his poor striking technique and that he was getting beat the entire fight and then got knocked out clowning. Silva himself said the knockout was due to poor technique and not clowning. Weidman essentially proved that Silva is not a good technical striker at all just very powerful and fast with great reflexes.

That's your boy^^^

PS Weidman knocked out Silva with his weak hand!!!

Seriously, you think Anderson is not a good technical striker? You are clearly very biased by your love for Weidman, it's insane to me how agitated you get by people who don't bow to the fact that Weidman destroyed Silva. Everyone has a different opinion man, people just go with their gut, just as you are man... let it ride, you can't change their minds anymore then they can change yours... I personally think Weidman clearly won both fights, but would stop short of it being a domination. But he did destroy that leg AM I RIGHT!? Haha, yeah... I'm right.

Seriously, you think Anderson is not a good technical striker? You are clearly very biased by your love for Weidman, it's insane to me how agitated you get by people who don't bow to the fact that Weidman destroyed Silva. Everyone has a different opinion man, people just go with their gut, just as you are man... let it ride, you can't change their minds anymore then they can change yours... I personally think Weidman clearly won both fights, but would stop short of it being a domination. But he did destroy that leg AM I RIGHT!? Haha, yeah... I'm right.

No I always hated Anderson and thought he was not a good technical striker. I've been Criticized on this forums many times for it. My disdain for Silva and his fans dates back to before Weidman was even in MMA.

yes I was kind of exaggerating just because of the fact that the disrespect pisses me off but I do think Anderson Silva proved to be the inferior fighter in every element of MMA in their two fights. he was clearly losing both fights .

But doesn't that exaggeration make you as bad as the people you despise?

Silva himself said the knockout was due to poor technique and not clowning.

I haven't seen that. Do you have a link?
I've seen where Silva said he was trying his hardest to win, that it was part of his strategy and he wasn't clowning. I haven't seen him admit that it was "poor technique."

Weidman essentially proved that Silva is not a good technical striker at all just very powerful and fast with great reflexes.

OK, I'm a huge mark for Weidman, but I don't think he proved that at all.
I don't think Anderson is "not a good technical striker" either. I do think he uses size to his advantage, and that he'd grown accustomed to being able to pick guys apart with his reach, but I also think he's got excellent technique.

The concern about the leg kicks with the second fight, where he doesn't turn his hips into the kick was pointed out by Bas, and that can certainly be considered a valid criticism from a reputable source...but it's also been pointed out that with the slapping style of kick that Anderson delivered through the bulk of his career he's able to deliver and recover more quickly and it lends itself more readily to combinations. In that light, I'm not sure that I'd call it poor technique, as much as I'd say he was willing to take risks based on the dividends he felt it would pay--and it paid dividends for the last 8 years for him.

But I don't think Weidman exposed him as being a poor fighter...I don't even think Anderson was on the decline or had lost a step. I just believe that Weidman is that skilled, and had studied film on Anderson. Chris's whole life was aimed at these fights, he grew up dreaming of facing Anderson, he prepared. And he was simply the better fighter.

But I don't take away anything from Anderson at all. To do so devalues Weidman's accomplishments.

Other than not turning his hips into the low kicks, where do you find that Anderson is not a good technical striker?

rh

All manner of men came to work for the News: everything from wild young Turks who wanted to rip the world in half and start all over again -- to tired, beer-bellied old hacks who wanted nothing more than to live out their days in peace before a bunch of lunatics ripped the world in half.